- (1.) THE case of the petitioner is that one Tinku, son of the informant left home at 11 P.M. on 5.8.2006 by informing his father that he is going with Bhola who is waiting outside the house to take him on a Ambassador car, bearing no.BR -17 -060. When he did not return home for number of days, the informant (petitioner) suspected some foul play and, therefore, he with sense of fear of untoward happenings, approached to Dhansar Police Station and informed to the police about the occurrence with the hope that something would be done by the police in order to recover his son but it appears from the statement made in one of the petitions (Annexure 8) that Dhansar police took the matter so casually that it did not care even to lodge a Sanha. On getting such a cool response, the informant helplessly approached the DIG, Bokaro and only on his intervention, a Sanha, bearing no.443 of 2006 dated 17.8.2006 was lodged but in spite of that Dhansar police did not do anything. Finding no way out, the informant again met with DIG, presumably with a hope to come something good due to his intervention. Only then on getting instruction from him, Dhansar police called the informant to police station and took another application on 11.9.2006, upon which Dhanbad (Dhansar) police Station Case No.580 of 2006 was instituted under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the said Bhola. Thereupon as per the case of the informant, the Investigating Officer advised the informant to trace the car as well as the accused and then to inform him. Acting on such advice, the informant having located the car and the accused informed the police telephonically but the police failed to arrest the accused, though seized the car. Subsequently, when the informant came to know that the accused is at his home, he informed about it to Dhansar police at 6 P.M. on 25.9.2006 but to utter dismay to the informant, he was told by the Dhansar Police to inform all about it to Jharia Police Station. Upon it the informant desperately asked for telephone number of Jharia Police Station but that was not provided. However, on getting telephone number of Jharia Police Station from other source, when the informant told to Jharia Police Station all about it, it refused to act upon on the plea that they do not have warrant of arrest with them. Thereafter the informant finding himself helpless immediately contacted Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on telephone at about 6 P.M. and perhaps on his intervention, the Investigating Officer Md. Mainuddin moved to arrest the accused but he failed to arrest him. Thereafter, when the informant approached to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro, assurance was given for the arrest of the accused but nothing was done. Thereupon, the informant filed an application before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 13.11.2006, upon which Chief Judicial Magistrate called progress report from the Investigating Officer. Meanwhile, the accused surrendered in the court on 20.11.2006 but nothing was done in order to recover son of the informant and, therefore, the informant expressed his apprehension before the Deputy Inspector General of Police that the Investigating Officer perhaps is in collusion with the accused and, therefore, he is not taking any interest in the matter of recovery of his son. Thereafter it does appear that the police took the accused on police remand and as per the statement made by the informant under Annexure 8, Inspector, Yaginder Singh as well as Investigating Officer, Md. Mainuddin of Dhansar Police Station brought the accused to the residence of Deputy Superintendent of Police where M.A.Raza, an Advocate, uncle of the victim Fool Kumari Devi Versus State Of Jharkhand also came. On interrogation, the accused Bhola expressed his ignorance over the where about of the victim. But while returning, the victim in the way, told uncle of the victim that he will tell everything provided the case is withdrawn. In spite of that, the victim could not be recovered and ultimately, police submitted charge sheet on 15.1.2007 against Bhola under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code without ensuring as to whether son of the informant is alive or dead.
(2.) UNDER this situation, this writ application has been filed wherein prayer has been made to direct the respondents to recover the victim and to produce him in the court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that despite all efforts made during the course of investigation, son of the informant could not be recovered. However, allegation was found to be, prima facie, true and hence, charge sheet was submitted but now the case has been reopened with the permission of the court and in course of investigation, number of persons have been interrogated to have some clue and even photograph of the victim has been published in the daily newspaper, so that the police may get any clue.
(3.) THIS action seems to have been taken only after filing of this application whereas earlier conduct of the Investigating Officer was as such that one can easily draw inference that he was quite indifferent towards the misery of the informant as the informant, on one hand, has been running from pillar to post and post to pillar in order to have some clue of his son but the Investigating Officer, on the other hand, was taking the matter so lightly as if nothing has happened inasmuch as the police even did not lodge the case promptly, rather only on the intervention of the Deputy Inspector General of Police/ Superintendent of Police, the case could be registered but even after institution, the Investigating Officer never appears to have investigated the case with all seriousness nor did act promptly to arrest the accused even on getting information about the presence of the accused in his house.;